What would you like to do?
A strict constructionist believes that?
the government should only exercise those powers that were intended by the Framers of the Constitution
1 person found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
A strict constructionist is One who argues a narrow interpretation of the constitutionals provisions, in particular those granting powers to the Federal Government. A…lso: A strict constructionist believes that the government should only exercise those powers that were intended by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States.
One who advocates a narrow interpretation of the constitutions provisions, in particular thoses granting power to government
once put into power they became more lenient with their constructionist values, but generally speaking---yes he was
a strict constructionist
A strict constructionist believes that the government should only exercise those powers that were intended by the farmers of the constitution that are allocated.
Yeah, and he still is... He actually published a theory on it
Thomas Jefferson did loose constructionist like things, But Thomas was a strict constructionist.
No Alexander Hamilton was not a strict constructionist. He was a man who changed the constitution a little bit to please him.
Liberal constructionist a broad construction of the powers given to congress. as to strict constructionist they wanted states to keep as much power as possible.
i didnt get the answer
Strict Constructionists believe a narrow, strict and literal interpretation of the express language of the Constitution is proper. This judicial philosophy requires a cour…t to apply the exact written text of the law or regulation to the issue before the court. Otherwise known as "plain meaning," the court must apply the statute as written; there must be no interpretation or drawing inferences. The problem with the Strict Construction philosophy is that its adherents refuse to address ambiguity in language, or that the meaning of words can change over the years. And, if the traditional meaning was applied by a court, would current citizens understand the court's decision. Example: Take the word "appeasement." Prior to WWII, appeasement was another word for "negotiation." Today, it means cowardly yielding to a bulling opponent. If "appeasement" was written into the Constitution or statute, if a Strict Constructionist used the pre-WWII interpretation of the word, would contemporary readers understand the court's intent? Loose Constructionists believe the opposite; the literal language of the Constitution or statutes must be interpreted in light of contemporary society, social conduct and common understanding of language. As Justice Marshall wrote in McCulloch, "Sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (S.Ct. 1819-03-06) Complicating this philosophical debate is that each side has never adhered strictly to their own principles. Jefferson, the hero of Strict Constructionists, often took a Loose Constructionist approach while President. Hamilton, hero to the Loose Constructionists, often argued for strict application of the Constitution in certain situations. Last, do not confuse Strict Construction with Originalism. Originalism (the term came into usage in the 1980's) is a philosophy based on the principle that courts are merely to uphold the law, not interpret, "create" or amend laws. The latter powers are, under Originalism, reserved strictly for the legislative branch.
He was a strict constructionist. In fact, one of the famous ironies of his presidency was that despite being a strict constructionist, he made the Louisiana Purchase, which wa…s an act opposed by other strict constructionists who did not believe that the U.S. government had the power to take such an action.
He was a strict constructionist. He viewed interpretted the Constituion narrowly. Strict constructionist were also called antiFederalists.
In Barack Obama
No, he is not. Strict constructionalists only want the Constitution interpreted as it was written, and many scholars and judges who agree with that view tend to espouse a very… conservative judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama, while a former professor of constitutional law, is more of a judicial moderate: he seems to believe that the law evolves and thus, the constitution can be adapted to changing circumstances.
In US Congress
Strict constitutionalists want Congress to pass only laws governing those items specifically written in the Constitution. Basically, the right to have a military and colle…ct taxes to pay for it.
sureno 13 for life
In US Congress
Strict constructionists want Congress to use only expressed powers.